Search Judgments

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) Section 94 (d) R/w Order 41 Rule 1  – The appeal contests the High Court’s decision to appoint a receiver for a property involved in a commercial suit. The appellant, claiming a share in the HUF property, argued against the receiver’s appointment, citing a prior status quo order and questioning the respondent’s tenant status. The respondent filed a commercial suit seeking permanent alternative accommodation and requested a receiver to prevent property alienation. The City Civil Court initially rejected the receiver’s appointment, deeming an injunction sufficient.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 307 – This case involves an appeal against a High Court judgment that convicted the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC, reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal. The FIR was filed by the complainant Farzan Ali, alleging that the appellant, along with other accused, assaulted his son Imran and his friends with knives and lathis.

The High Court partially allowed the appeal against the acquittal order of the Trial court, sentencing the Appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and confirmed the acquittal of the other two accused. The primary contention revolved around whether the evidence justified the appellant’s conviction for attempted murder.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and Section 147 – This case involves an appeal against a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stemming from a dishonored cheque issued by the appellants (a partnership firm and its partner) to the respondent/complainant for a loan repayment. The Trial Court initially convicted the appellants, but the Appellate Court reversed this decision. The High Court then overturned the Appellate Court’s order, restoring the initial conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants and respondent submitted a settlement agreement, where the appellants paid the respondent Rs.

Patents Act, 1970 – Section 2(1)(ja), 3(k), 10(5) – The appellant filed a patent application for an invention titled “Associating Command Services with Multiple Active Components.” The application was rejected by the Patent Office based on objections regarding lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(k) (computer program per se), and insufficient disclosure under Section 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970.

The appellant argued that their invention provides a method and system where a command surface is coupled to more than one component on a page, even when those components are associated with different applications. This addresses the problem of conventional systems’ inability to process different unrelated applications simultaneously. They further argued that the invention possesses technical effect and technical contribution, improving system functionality.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – This appeal was filed by an insurance company challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to the parents of the deceased, Angappan, who died in a road accident caused by a lorry driver’s negligence. The claimants sought compensation for the death of their son. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs. 22,12,000 with 7.5% interest per annum.

Pre-Conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act, 1994) – Sections 2(a), 17, 23, 28(1), 30(1) – The appellant, a physician and radiologist, was accused of illegal sex determination under the PCPNDT Act, 1994, following a decoy operation and subsequent raid on his clinic. The appellant challenged the prosecution, arguing the raid conducted under Section 30(1) of the Act was illegal.

The core contention was that the ‘Appropriate Authority,’ a multi-member body for the district (comprising the Civil Surgeon, District Programme Officer, and District Attorney), did not collectively authorize the search. Instead, only the Civil Surgeon, who was the Chairman, signed the order.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) Section 228 – The appeal challenged the dismissal of an Ancillary Probate application under Section 228 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA). The appellant, the deceased testator’s wife, sought Ancillary Probate for Indian properties mentioned in a Will already probated in the USA.

The testator’s Will, which bequeathed properties in India to the appellant, was duly proved in the Middlesex County Surrogate-s Court, State of New Jersey, USA, leading to the issuance of Executor and Letters of Testamentary Certificates. However, the Indian Probate Court dismissed the plea, citing the appellant’s non-appearance, non-production of the original Will, and lack of re-proving it in India.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 – Section 38(1) & (2); Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 – Rule 11, 15 & 16; Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(d) & 21 – The court addresses the growing menace of dog bites and rabies, highlighting the alarming increase in reported cases across India, particularly in Delhi. The court acknowledges that the current Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which mandate sterilization and release of dogs in the same locality, have failed to control the stray dog population and reduce dog bite incidents.

The court emphasizes the infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India due to the presence of stray dogs in public spaces. It stresses the duty of the state to ensure public safety and free movement without fear of dog bites, especially for vulnerable groups like children, the elderly, and the visually impaired.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960; Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 – The Supreme Court addressed the issue of stray dog management in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) following a suo moto cognizance of a news report about a child’s death due to rabies. The Court initially issued directives for rounding up, relocating, sterilizing, deworming, and immunizing stray dogs, with a strict prohibition on releasing them back onto the streets.

Several petitions were filed by animal welfare organizations, challenging these directions as conflicting with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, which mandate the release of sterilized and immunized dogs back to their original locations. Concerns were raised regarding the logistical feasibility of housing all stray dogs in shelters and potential harm to the animals.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 179, Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [BSA] – Section 132, Advocates Act, 1961 – Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India – The case originated from a reference made by a two-judge bench regarding a notice issued to an Advocate under Section 179 of the BNSS. The notice directed the Advocate to appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to provide details about a case in which he represented the accused. This raised concerns about the extent to which investigating agencies can summon lawyers for questioning, especially considering Section 132 of the BSA, which protects privileged communications between lawyers and clients.

Various bar associations intervened, arguing that such notices infringe upon an Advocate’s right to practice under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution, and violate the statutory protection afforded to client-lawyer communications.